Library camgirl busted

[JerryBoBerry]

I have a question,

Something I've been confused about, in your opinion (all of yours ) what is the worst about the kids on the feed? Is it the model exposes herself to the kids? the fact that an innocent bystander is being streamed on a pornsite? the fact that someone underaged is being streamed at a pornsite? Is it because it's against MFC rules or because it's illegal? (is it actually illegal?, adult popping up in the screen while streaming isn't illegal, that's legal by law, even on a porn site. I don't know about kids in this case, but legally, what is a pornsite?, the moment the kid showed up she was 'only' topless.)

I understand there's a lot of reasons to deem it wrong, and I fully agree, I'm just not entirely clear as to why.

I personally find it wrong to stream from a public place and expose yourself, with or without children. if it's against the law, it's wrong IMO. However, why the intense reaction to the kid on cam specifically?

In Canada it depends on where she lives. Inividual provinces have their own laws. Being topless in public has not made it to the national supreme court yet (that i know of). But in some it would not be a problem, even exposing her breasts to children.

Take Ontario for example. The case that set the precedent in the highest Ontario court system was a women walking on the street of her campus on a hot day, so she took her shirt off. Another woman called police because her child saw it. Directly involving children being exposed to nudity in a public case, see why I chose Ontario? :mrgreen:

It originally went bad for her in the lower court, she had to appeal. Final result was the high court ruled it was not lewd or indecent therefore it was not a problem to be topless in public even if children saw.

So, it 'depends' on where she's from. But it could be not illegal and just another case of a foreigner injecting their morals onto another countries actions again. Much like you recently experienced with Piet. It's still against mfc rules though, so they can fire as they wish.

 

[Sevrin]

Public nudity in Canada isn't cut and dried. Walking topless on the street is one thing, but taking your top off for the purpose of inciting a sexual response is another.

From Wikipedia - Clothing Laws by Country:

In Canada, s.173 of the Criminal Code prohibits "indecent acts". There is no statutory definition in the Code of what constitutes an indecent act (other than that the exposure of the genitals for a sexual purpose to anyone under 14 years of age), so that the decision of what state of undress is "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges to decide. Judges have held, for example, that nude sunbathing is not indecent. Also, streaking is similarly not regarded as indecent. Section 174 prohibits nudity if it offends "against public decency or order" and in view of the public. The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.

Toplessness is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent. The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense. Since then, the court ruling has been tested and upheld several times.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Public nudity in Canada isn't cut and dried. Walking topless on the street is one thing, but taking your top off for the purpose of inciting a sexual response is another.

From Wikipedia - Clothing Laws by Country:

In Canada, s.173 of the Criminal Code prohibits "indecent acts". There is no statutory definition in the Code of what constitutes an indecent act (other than that the exposure of the genitals for a sexual purpose to anyone under 14 years of age), so that the decision of what state of undress is "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges to decide. Judges have held, for example, that nude sunbathing is not indecent. Also, streaking is similarly not regarded as indecent. Section 174 prohibits nudity if it offends "against public decency or order" and in view of the public. The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.

Toplessness is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent. The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense. Since then, the court ruling has been tested and upheld several times.

Thank you! I was on my way here to post this same thing basically. In many parts of Oregon it is also legal to be topless in public but it is not legal to expose yourself with the intent to arouse or express sexuality. So even if it was legal to be topless in the cities where these women live, they would not be covered because they were removing clothing with the purpose of arousal.
Basically, non sexual nudity is allowed and that's pretty basic across the board for places that allow nudity in public.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Okay, I saw the Lilsecrett video this morning. Yeah. She went way beyond the rules there. Unbelievably stupid move on her part. She definitely deserved the ban from mfc.

 

[ramblin]

I have a question,

Something I've been confused about, in your opinion (all of yours ) what is the worst about the kids on the feed? Is it the model exposes herself to the kids? the fact that an innocent bystander is being streamed on a pornsite? the fact that someone underaged is being streamed at a pornsite? Is it because it's against MFC rules or because it's illegal? (is it actually illegal?, adult popping up in the screen while streaming isn't illegal, that's legal by law, even on a porn site. I don't know about kids in this case, but legally, what is a pornsite?, the moment the kid showed up she was 'only' topless.)

I understand there's a lot of reasons to deem it wrong, and I fully agree, I'm just not entirely clear as to why.

I personally find it wrong to stream from a public place and expose yourself, with or without children. if it's against the law, it's wrong IMO. However, why the intense reaction to the kid on cam specifically?

The upsetting part to me is taking an innocent child and parading him/her in front of a bunch of masturbating men and women. Even if the child is not aware at the time of who's on the other end of the camera, that just seems so far beyond acceptable.

The bits that bother me, from really couldn't care less to really pisses me off:
1) The actual act of sneaking in some sexy times under a desk
2) The invasion of privacy of putting bystanders on the internet without their permission and without attempt to mask their identity
3) The fact that the bystanders are being put on an adult site, likely creating a record of their past involuntary "work" in the adult industry and making them non-consensual participants in viewers' sex play
4) The fact that the bystanders are children

 

[Azhrarn]

I have a question,

Something I've been confused about, in your opinion (all of yours ) what is the worst about the kids on the feed?

...I understand there's a lot of reasons to deem it wrong, and I fully agree, I'm just not entirely clear as to why.

I personally find it wrong to stream from a public place and expose yourself, with or without children. if it's against the law, it's wrong IMO. However, why the intense reaction to the kid on cam specifically?

I haven't seen the video, so I'm going to respond in a general fashion. First of all, having a child on cam speaking to a cam girl - depending on the conversation, that could be interpreted as grooming. Another factor, how is the child dressed? Young girls often dress in ways that may seem innocent to an ordinary person, but that could set off a pedophile. But most important in my mind, think about how paranoid most cam girls are about one of their viewers tracking them down. Well, suppose some pedophile decides to track down a child he sees on cam? You really want that on your conscience? Keep. Children. Off. Cams!

 

[PRISM]

FFS a pedophile on mfc is probably going to be molesting kids close to his location that are easy to get, your sounding like those people that scare others about the bumper stickers.


http://www.freerangekids.com/that-stick ... gering-me/

 

[TacoBelle]

Prism, I agree that they would probably be looking for bait closer to home. However, the sticker issue: yes, if you are travelling a few cities away, the sticker probably won't matter. But if your neighbor is a pedo and has his eye on little Tommy already, the sticker WILL help him know A) What Tommy's interested in to get him to feel comfortable talking B) What after-school activities he is involved in (So he knows that Tommy will be playing soccer outside and can figure out what days) C) What school he goes to so he could possibly wait outside ("Hey Tommy! Your mom's running late, but she sent me to pick you up!")


While it's a long-shot, it still COULD happen. And anyone with a child would do everything in their power to keep them safe. If you think it's bullshit to be overly cautious, then roll your eyes when you see people talking about it and move on. But when you have a family of your own, I pray that you would do everything to protect them, regardless of how overly-cautious and paranoid it makes you seem.

 

[Azhrarn]

FFS a pedophile on mfc is probably going to be molesting kids close to his location that are easy to get, your sounding like those people that scare others about the bumper stickers.

http://www.freerangekids.com/that-stick ... gering-me/

I’m not completely disagreeing with you, which is why I used the word paranoia in my post. If you’ve isolated yourself to the point where you literally have no friends, and you dress down to the point where guys rarely approach you, let alone ask you out, and yet you regularly carry around more weapons than the average police officer, then I would say you have a problem much more serious than worrying about whether some viewer who lives across the country from you might be a psycho/stalker/rapist. If he is a rapist, I think he’d probably rape the checkout girl who works around the corner before he’d hop on a plane to go find some cam girl. So I think a trip to a therapist would probably be more in order than a trip to a gun store.

However, because adults have resources that children do not, and because pedophiles aren’t like ordinary rapists, in the case of a child I would say, feel free to be as paranoid as you wish, although statistically I do know that the real dangers are probably much closer to home.

 

[Gen]

You guys do know that there are multiple models on this forum who have had guys fly to their location....right? Like this isn't an out-of-the-blue fear, this is a real thing that has happened to girls you're speaking with. Many rapists/predators/creeps in general fixate on one person, whether it's the checkout girl or a celebrity or a camgirl or whoever. Camgirls broadcasting their image all over the world, acting specifically in a way thats meant to be as alluring and attractive as possible - it's pretty logical why that might attract a certain kind of creeper and thus why many girls try to hide their location and personal info. I don't really know why that's shocking or annoying to you.

 

[Azhrarn]

You guys do know that there are multiple models on this forum who have had guys fly to their location....right? Like this isn't an out-of-the-blue fear, this is a real thing that has happened to girls you're speaking with. Many rapists/predators/creeps in general fixate on one person, whether it's the checkout girl or a celebrity or a camgirl or whoever. Camgirls broadcasting their image all over the world, acting specifically in a way thats meant to be as alluring and attractive as possible - it's pretty logical why that might attract a certain kind of creeper and thus why many girls try to hide their location and personal info. I don't really know why that's shocking or annoying to you.

Seems as if you completely missed the point I was trying to make, only to criticize me for something I never said. I don't know how many cam girls there are. I know there are usually one or two thousand just on MFC on any given night, so it stands to reason at least one of them would have had a run-in with a stalker. I don't recall ever disputing that.

But let me give you an example from the world of IT since that's what I'm familiar with. It's possible to design a system that would be 99.99% secure. The only problem is, it would be unusable. If you can't get data to the people who need it on a timely basis, then it's essentially worthless. So the rational thing to do, is to design a system with security that is proportional to the level of threat. That is the point I'm trying to get across. When you arrange your "life" in such a way that you're so concerned with security that you essentially don't have a life, are isolated from friends and family, have no support system, that should be of concern to you. Your level of security isn't proportional to the level of threat, and it's having life-damaging consequences. At the same time, I also know of cam girls who take extraordinary precautions against online dangers, yet routinely take ridiculous risks in their day-to-day lives. So once again, the level of security isn't proportional to the level of threat. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[JickyJuly]

Why are you even putting the concept out there to be grasped? People have different concepts of personal safety and varying levels of anxiety. It's not anyone else's business how guarded or wreckless another adult chooses to be. What a weird thing to even discuss.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

You guys do know that there are multiple models on this forum who have had guys fly to their location....right? Like this isn't an out-of-the-blue fear, this is a real thing that has happened to girls you're speaking with. Many rapists/predators/creeps in general fixate on one person, whether it's the checkout girl or a celebrity or a camgirl or whoever. Camgirls broadcasting their image all over the world, acting specifically in a way thats meant to be as alluring and attractive as possible - it's pretty logical why that might attract a certain kind of creeper and thus why many girls try to hide their location and personal info. I don't really know why that's shocking or annoying to you.

When you arrange your "life" in such a way that you're so concerned with security that you essentially don't have a life, are isolated from friends and family, have no support system, that should be of concern to you. Your level of security isn't proportional to the level of threat, and it's having life-damaging consequences. At the same time, I also know of cam girls who take extraordinary precautions against online dangers, yet routinely take ridiculous risks in their day-to-day lives. So once again, the level of security isn't proportional to the level of threat. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Just carry a gun. Throws your whole theory out the window. Reasonable security, reasonable access to life. Win win.

 

[PRISM]

Why are you even putting the concept out there to be grasped? People have different concepts of personal safety and varying levels of anxiety. It's not anyone else's business how guarded or wreckless another adult chooses to be. What a weird thing to even discuss.

There is nothing weird or "non of your business" about promoting threat assessment.

 

[JickyJuly]

You cannot effectively assess threat for someone you don't actually know. Further, the way people handle personal safety is built by their own experience and needs. I, for example, feel fine walking down any street in my area. I wouldn't expect everyone else to.

Also, you're using quotation marks incorrectly.

 

[Lexi Emerson]

You cannot effectively assess threat for someone you don't actually know. Further, the way people handle personal safety is built by their own experience and needs. I, for example, feel fine walking down any street in my area. I wouldn't expect everyone else to.

Also, you're using quotation marks incorrectly.

Jicky is spot on!

I think it is a little asinine for people who are not camgirls to question us and basically say that we are being irrationally paranoid because of the precautions many of us take. You have zero clue how many creepy and sometimes threatening people we come across on a daily basis. Some of us are more cautious than others, I don't see why this matters at all to anyone else. It is not hurting you in any way, it just makes us feel more comfortable and safe.

 

[PRISM]

You cannot effectively assess threat for someone you don't actually know. Further, the way people handle personal safety is built by their own experience and needs. I, for example, feel fine walking down any street in my area. I wouldn't expect everyone else to.

Also, you're using quotation marks incorrectly.

So how is telling a cam model she needs to do her own threat assessment instead of falling for paranoia which may ruin her life bad?

 

[Lexi Emerson]

You cannot effectively assess threat for someone you don't actually know. Further, the way people handle personal safety is built by their own experience and needs. I, for example, feel fine walking down any street in my area. I wouldn't expect everyone else to.

Also, you're using quotation marks incorrectly.

So how is telling a cam model she needs to do her own threat assessment instead of falling for paranoia which may ruin her life bad?

Wait, why do you need to tell a camgirl anything? I think it is a little odd that you feel you need to tell a camgirl any of this stuff. It isn't really your place. Because again, you do not understand what we deal with all the time.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Prism, mate... this seems like a silly hill to die on, ya know? Every model here has already done their own threat assessment. That's why they don't need a complete stranger telling them their assessment is off. Is it possible some models take precautions disproportionate to the actual risk they place themselves in? Sure. Is that something you're going to solve by generalising about an entire forum of women whose individual circumstances you can't possibly know? Probably not.

 

[PRISM]

You cannot effectively assess threat for someone you don't actually know. Further, the way people handle personal safety is built by their own experience and needs. I, for example, feel fine walking down any street in my area. I wouldn't expect everyone else to.

Also, you're using quotation marks incorrectly.

So how is telling a cam model she needs to do her own threat assessment instead of falling for paranoia which may ruin her life bad?

Wait, why do you need to tell a camgirl anything? I think it is a little odd that you feel you need to tell a camgirl any of this stuff. It isn't really your place. Because again, you do not understand what we deal with all the time.

So why are cam models exempt from so much stuff? There are many other industries out there where the level of protection needed is actually higher than cam models and the people in those industries don't freak out when someone tries to calm them down about it.

 

[JoleneBrody]

... this is such a bizarre crusade. Dude, all you are currently doing is convincing everyone that models are not in fact paranoid, because people like you REALLY DO exist.

The more you bring this up and argue about it, the more you are fighting against yourself in your own weird battle.

 

[Sevrin]

You cannot effectively assess threat for someone you don't actually know. Further, the way people handle personal safety is built by their own experience and needs. I, for example, feel fine walking down any street in my area. I wouldn't expect everyone else to.

You are correct in that it's not possible to assess the threat for someone one doesn't actually know without a precise understanding of their circumstances, i.e., personal relationships, neighbourhood, or whether they take basic security precautions with their computers, door locks, social media use, et cetera.

I believe there are two different things being discussed here, though. One is the objective level of threat, which is difficult to assess, especially on an individual level, given that we never have complete knowledge about our environment, and another is the perception of threat, which can only be subjective and which is a function of past experience, prejudices, and tolerance of risk, among other things.

In the end, we can't live each other's lives, and everyone has to make their own decisions about how cautious they want to be, and that will inevitably be based on their subjective perception of threat, rather than a purely objective threat assessment. That's just how humans are.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

 

[Camgirl]

This guy is a troll. No one can possibly be this slow. If so, I think he should reevaluate his threat assessment, because if he is this vacuous someone is surely going to take advantage of him.

 

[Nordling]

I just want to say, "what the buggery?"

First, I don't know how Prism came to the conclusion that models are "panicking," "paranoid," or any other view that he has no way of assessing. We only get impressions from what people post online, but I've never felt models are particularly paranoid about their safety. They simply discuss safety issues on here and elsewhere. That does not in any way indicate panic. It's a fucking discussion, and a valid one, because there ARE safety issues. It doesn't matter if their safety is way less in danger than if they trained tigers without a whip. Other occupations are irrelevant to one's own safety.

And second, wtf dude.

 

[PRISM]

I'll make sure to make a "I told you so thread" after the first model ends up killing some innocent person by thinking it was a stalker.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I'll make sure to make a "I told you so thread" after the first model ends up killing some innocent person by thinking it was a stalker.

You do that. We'll be here not holding our breath.

 

[PRISM]

I really don't get why everyone on here acts like a cult, Models are supposed to think and act a certain way, and then members are supposed to act and think a certain way and neither are allowed to even question it.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I really don't get why everyone on here acts like a cult, Models are supposed to think and act a certain way, and then members are supposed to act and think a certain way and neither are allowed to even question it.

Nah man... you are just universally weird.

 

[PRISM]

I really don't get why everyone on here acts like a cult, Models are supposed to think and act a certain way, and then members are supposed to act and think a certain way and neither are allowed to even question it.

Nah man... you are just universally weird.

FFS, Comparing different cultures and how they ideals when it comes to privacy as well as threat assessment over paranoia is not weird.